Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Arvisais, D.

Publications and source records attributed to Arvisais, D..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Effects of experimentally induced fatigue on motor learning: A scoping review

The literature on the effect of fatigue on motor learning is limited and marked by inconsistent findings. This scoping review aimed to explore the available knowledge on the effects of fatigue induced by physical and cognitive exertion on motor learning, and to compile and understand how it is studied. A comprehensive search strategy using relevant index terms and keywords was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, and Dissertations & Theses Global. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed considerable inconsistencies in how fatigue and motor learning were defined and measured. None of the studies examined the effect of fatigue induced by combined physical and cognitive exertion, and only 7 studies investigated fatigue induced by cognitive exertion. Acuity tasks were the most frequently used to assess motor learning, employed in 14 studies. Notably, all participants were between 16.5 and 31 years of age, and reporting of key demographic and physiological characteristics such as sex, gender, physical activity level, and body mass index was inconsistent or absent. This review highlights the need for comprehensive definitions of both fatigue and motor learning to improve consistency and reproducibility across studies. Given the limited research on the effects of fatigue induced by cognitive and combined physical and cognitive exertion, future studies should prioritize using these experimental manipulations. Also, future studies should diversify the motor learning tasks used in research to allow both direct and conceptual replication. Additionally, broader age ranges and comprehensive participant profiling should be prioritized.

neuroscience↗

Physical exercise and motor learning: A scoping review

Physical exercise can enhance motor learning by inducing neurophysiological changes that facilitate this process. This preregistered scoping review aimed to map current knowledge on the effects of physical exercise on motor learning. Experimental studies and review articles examining any form of physical exercise in healthy or clinical populations were included, with outcomes assessing motor skill acquisition and/or retention. A systematic search across eight databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO) identified 66 sources, including 62 experimental studies and 4 reviews. Two researchers independently reviewed articles and extracted data using a pretested data extraction table; disagreements at the study selection or data extraction stages were resolved through discussion with a third researcher. Most studies involved healthy populations (83%), with clinical populations underrepresented (17%). Aerobic exercise was most commonly investigated, particularly lower-limb cycling (73%), while resistance exercise was rarely examined (0.6%). Exercise intensity was predominantly high, although 6% of studies reported intensity not reflecting the prescribed method. Motor learning outcomes varied: 55% assessed both skill acquisition and retention, while 45% relied on retention tests alone at short-term or delayed time points, or both. Infrequent use of long-term retention tests limits understanding of lasting effects. Overall, this review highlights gaps in the literature, including the underrepresentation of clinical populations, inconsistent reporting of exercise intensity, scarce research on resistance exercise, and limited assessment of long-term retention, which may affect interpretation of exercises impact on motor learning. HighlightsO_LIClinical populations were underrepresented in the exercise and motor learning field. C_LIO_LIHigh-intensity lower-limb cycling was the most common exercise studied. C_LIO_LIResistance exercise was underrepresented in the field. C_LIO_LIAccurate prescription of exercise intensity is essential to ensure reliable results. C_LIO_LIFuture research should more frequently use longer-term retention tests. C_LI

neuroscience↗